Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2015

This blog was first published in OUTREACH as part of an issue looking back at COP 20 in Lima.

There is no question: COP 20 utterly failed
to translate the positive changes happening in the real world into the
negotiated outcome. After China and the US had, for the first time ever together, agreed to reduce carbon pollution and to drastically increase the
use of clean energy, there was hope that the global climate
conversation could change at Lima. Though more action is needed from both,
there was at least hope that we could move from a “you go first, you know this
issue is important ” mentality to an attitude of“I can act, if you can act.” This did not
happen. Given that governments had already agreed in Warsaw last year that they
would only put forward their pledges for Paris after Lima, may be it was unrealistic to expect that mental shift
to already show up in the formal negotiations. But it would have been so nice … especially
as Typhoon Hagupit, right during the negotiations, once again illustrated the urgency to act.

Instead, the US and other developed countries
emphasised the need to be “realistic” and “nationally determined” with future
emission cuts, and disgracefully resisted stronger action on finance and
adaptation, in particular to the most vulnerable countries.

India and China, on the other hand, allied with
oil-producing states in an effort to protect themselves from taking on tougher
and more binding emissions cuts in future.

The result was a messy compromise that sets no common
time frame at all for future pollution cuts.The Lima decision does require countries to submit
basic information about theclimate actions they plan to include
in the Paris agreement. But instead of a proper process to assess whether these
actions will be sufficient and fairly distributed, all we
will see is a technical paper compiled by the UNFCCC Secretariat to assess
these inputs.

The outcome in Lima also establishes no clear requirement for rich
countries to include climate finance in their reported actions before Paris,
and does not establish a clear road-map for scaling up finance towards the 100
billion dollars a year promised by 2020.

This is all appalling. True. But Lima must
also not be allowed to distract from the fact that 2014 has been a positive
year in climate politics over all. And that a meaningful result could still be
agreed in Paris.

And though the Chinese government failed to
change their negotiation stance at COP 20, the end of China´s coal boom is still
excellent news. After all, it was that very boom that made the first ten years
of the 21st century the worst ever for our global climate. Also, the
current decline in coal use does still create the possibility of China changing
their stance by the time governments meet in Paris ...

2014 was the year when it became more and
more obvious that acting on climate change delivers
jobs, livelihoods and opportunities.The days when acting on climate
change could be considered above all a burden are over(except, it seems, in the UNFCCC negotiations
bubble). Renewables simply are the most economical
solution for new power capacity in an ever increasing number of
countries. China, this year, is installing as much solar as the US has ever (!)
done.

Indeed, even governments in Lima – despite their lowest common
denominator approach to the negotiations - were not entirely tone deaf to the growing demands of the people and the changing
economics of climate action. For the first time ever, the official negotiation
text now includes a carbon free future as a possible goal: The working paper outlining options for the new global
climate treaty contains a proposal for the world to go zero carbon by 2050. Of
course, this is just an option. But it is proof that a carbon free future is no
longer just a green vision. It is a real possibility, even in the eyes of
government bureaucrats. Retaining
a 2050 carbon free commitment in the document - and strengthening it further,
with proposals that accelerate
a transition to 100% renewable energy for all - could be game-changing. Paris could
still signal the end of the age of fossil fuels.

I am not denying that governments in Lima did
their best to make us all wonder whether there has been any real progress on
climate politics this year … The influence of the fossil fuel lobby on
governments North and South was once again as obvious as it was odious (and hence the call by 350.org to end that
influence extremely timely).

And yet, the urgency of the climate science,
the increasingly attractive economics of renewables, and the rising global
climate movement, means that progress on climate action is now inevitable. Governments in Lima dithered. But the momentum
is still on the side of climate action as we end 2014.

As historic as the march in New York was, the end of China´s coal boom, the very boom that made the first ten years of the 21st century the worst ever for our global climate was also important. The latest data shows coal use falling faster than thought in China. If this turn into a long term trend, China´s emissions can stop their relentless rise soon.

For years, global climate meetings were the place where countries would say to each other: “you go first, you know this issue is important ”. Now we are moving to a different world. Now countries say: “I can act, if you can act.” This is a major mental shift. This thinking makes collective action a possibility.

To deliver actions that can actually prevent climate chaos, though, we need to go further. We need more countries to say, “I want to act faster than you, because that will be better for me (and you).” This is not a pipe dream because acting on climate change delivers jobs, livelihoods and opportunities. The days when acting against climate change could be considered a burden are over. Clean, renewable energy is getting bigger, better and cheaper every day and can provide the solutions the world needs. Renewables are the most economical solution for new power capacity in an ever-increasing number of countries.

100% of new power capacity added in the United States in August was renewable and countries such as Denmark and Germany are producing new ´clean electricity´ records almost every month. China is installing as much solar this year as the US has ever (!) done.

They must get the direction right and call for 100% renewables for all and a phase out of fossil fuels by 2050. There is already a sentence in the draft negotiation text setting out a “long-term goal of reaching zero carbon emissions by 2050”. That needs to stay. In addition, governments need to spell out that they are committed to the just transition to renewables for all that the goal implies.

Lima must agree that governments can´t delay action. That means that all governments must tell us what they plan to commit to in Paris before March 2015. It also means agreeingthat targets are set for 5 years at a time – and be reviewed after 5 years regularly. All countries must say at Paris what they will do between 2020 and 2025. Targets must not be locked in for 2030, which could delay actions (after all, politicians in many countries will no longer be in power in 2030).

"When people in large numbers start believing that change is possible, only then does change become possible.”

We are getting there on climate change. The urgency of the climate science, the increasingly attractive economics of renewables, and the rising global climate movement, means that progress on climate action is now inevitable. Leaders in Lima can do their job on behalf of their people speed up the transition to a world run on renewables for all. But even if they dither, they will not be able to change the fact, that the momentum is on our side as we end 2014. Join us – so that we can keep the momentum going!

It´s
a shame therefore, that the report,
- though right about the urgency to act -is endorsing some technologies that are not sustainable, fast to deploy
or safe. It´s simply not possible to produce the amount of bioenergy that the
report calls for sustainably, for example. And nuclear power is so expensive,
slow and dangerous, that it is simply
a distraction in the climate fight. We can do even better. The technologies are there to deliver a true Energy Revolution based
on energy efficiency and renewables. We therefore recommend that you look at
our roadmap to a safe energy future
before you rush to endorse Sachs´s.

That
said, Sachs´s call for action was overdue. So far, the High Level Political
Forum had lacked any urgency. This Forum was created at the Rio+20
Summit two years ago. It is supposed to give greater weight to development that
does not cost the earth or our future. And it is supposed to check on
governments actually implementing the (however inadequate) commitments made at
Rio. Including new Sustainable
Development Goals, which governments are set to agree by September 2015. So
far, though, we see no sign of the High Level Political Forum having the gravitas
and importance to really hold governments to account on sustainable
development. To the contrary, we hear of wrangling behind the scenes in which some
governments try to weaken the High Level Political Forum further …

It
would be easy to despair at such news. But meeting at the UN are never just
about what is formally being negotiated. As the media
coverage for Sachs´s roadmap shows, the UN is also a platform. It is the
ground and place for necessary global discussions – including climate change.
It´s simply a fact, for example, that the media pays more attention to climate
issues during the
yearly global climate negotiations than during any other time of the year.

It´s true that environmental
bodies generally lack the teeth that organizations like the World Trade Organization
(WTO) have. Whereas the WTO can impose punitive trade sanctions on countries
not following their rules, environmental bodies are often lacking meaningful enforcement
mechanisms. But there is no doubt, that without the global rules we do have, the plunder of our planet would
be even faster and extensive.

Especially because
global rules become the “minimum standard” on which you can build. For example,
the toxic waste trade rules - known as the Basel Convention - helped us, when
we – successfully – campaigned against electronic waste. We needed to tighten
up national legislations to succeed and the national discussions could start at
a higher level, because there was already an agreed global benchmark.

So as I go back now
to the windowless conference rooms at UN Headquarters to do my part in
pressuring our governments, please help me by joining our
movement.

Introducing myself, Daniel Mittler ...

I am the Political Director of Greenpeace International, heading their Political and Business Unit. I am leading a global team of specialists working on issues ranging from protecting the Arctic and High Seas to delivering progressive policies that protect our climate. We are responsible for internal strategy advice to campaigns and external representation at global political and business fora. I am a member of the Global Program managing team and from 2010 to 2012 was also on the senior management team of Greenpeace's global forest campaign.

From 1997-2000 I was a researcher at the Bartlett School of Planning at University College London. I was looking at achieving sustainabilty in cities; mainly because I love cities. The year before, I was living in Bonn serving my country by writing press releases for the youth-wing of Friends of the Earth Germany (BUNDjugend).

I still think Edinburgh is one of the finest city on the planet (though I am equally fond of New York). But Edinburgh could do even better, especially on transport, which is why I ran Edinburgh Friends of the Earth for a while.

I love kayaking, reading, going to the theatre and cinema, hiking, music (I still try to play the cello) - all the usual middle class stuff. I have a way too loud laugh, but at least I manage to laugh. What really excites me is making the world at the same time a more just and greener place - and creating spaces where people can get active. So, do something!